111–120 of 181 posts
Earlier quoted context omitted.
I'm much more familiar with OpenBSD and FreeBSD on the server-side, and I don't feel real comfortable with Linux. The two biggest vendors, Red Hat and Ubuntu, don't really give the warm fuzzies. Maybe something like System 76 backs.
I have tried all three and much comfortable with NetBSD.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
From the parent comment > Sort of agrees with my own opinion, that your use of Macs and iPhones
I read that too. Parent went off topic for 1 word. Your entire comment is off topic. Do you have any thoughts on mac os you would like to share since that is the topic of the post?
Arm Macs are step change from x86. Given a choice between being on the Mac platform where Apple has moved fast to introduce better technology and being stuck on hot, loud, relatively slow battery hogging x86 PCs. I’ll take the former.
> What other actively exploited bugs are Big Sur and Monterey now vulnerable to? Actually, Apple sometimes patches actively exploited vulnerabilities in "unsupported" older versions of both macOS and iOS. The vulnerabilities that don't get quickly patched are the ones that aren't actively exploited. In any case, security researchers talk about known vulnerabilities that have or haven't been patched, but as the author…
Ergo you are most likely to be attacked using exploits that are both known and fixed because you are running old unpatched software compared to new bugs in recently released software.
In addition recently released browsers are great but your browser also relies on security features from your OS. I don't agree that its sufficient to run the most recently released browser on your old OS. Your up to date OS complete with new bugs is by far the best choice.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
> This is a common misconception. This is vague. > Major OS updates always introduce more bugs than they fix. This was my major point. > Bertrand Serlet put up a "No New Features" keynote slide for Snow Leopard, but that was highly misleading, because Snow Leopard had many big under the hood changes, But no new features. The major goals of Snow Leopard were to improve performance and reduce its memory footprint (by r…
> > Major OS updates always introduce more bugs than they fix. > This was my major point. I don't think your words said what you thought you might have meant: "with Snow Leopard, Mountain Lion, and High Sierra standing out as focusing on bug fixes rather than introducing new features (and new bugs)" Major updates never focus on bug fixes rather than introducing new features (and new bugs). Otherwise they wouldn't nee…
> Except the annual release cycle actually started with Mountain Lion, which was 1 year after Lion, and High Sierra was also 1 year after Sierra, but you put them in the "the glory days of OS X stability".
They mean what I said, but I'm certain now that instead, you did this, but let's see if this helps
>>>> Leopard to Mountain Lion were the glory days of OS X stability,
COMMA (NEXT STATEMENT AND NEW THOUGHT)-->
>>>> with Snow Leopard, Mountain Lion, and High Sierra standing out as focusing on bug fixes rather than introducing new features (and new bugs).
> I was talking about how macOS annoyingly advertises new major updates, for example in Software Update, and even permanently badging your System Preferences Dock icon until you upgrade.
I don't think your words said what you meant and/or I made a poor assumption by your use of "pushing" in the context of "updates" or upgrades. Apple did start to push out security patches for supported OS versions, but you meant notices, or nags, of available OS upgrades. These can be avoided by disabling push notifications via the gui[1] or more permanently using the Terminal and launchd to disable push notifications:
sudo launchctl unload -w /System/Library/LaunchAgents/com.apple.notificationcenterui.plist
sudo launchctl unload -wF /System/Library/LaunchDaemons/com.apple.softwareupdate*
sudo defaults write /Library/Preferences/com.apple.SoftwareUpdate AutomaticDownload -boolean FALSE
[1] https://www.businessinsider.com/guides/tech/how-to-turn-off-...
[2] http://tech.masterofsql.com/os-x/unload-disable-unwanted-age...
[3] https://gist.github.com/mvanbaak/e98b7b622ea2c8ab626d51cb88e...
[4] https://github.com/mathiasbynens/dotfiles/blob/main/.macos
Earlier quoted context omitted.
> "New versions of macOS are full of bugs" This is why I never liked Apple's annual upgrade schedule. Ostensibly to stay ahead of security issues, annual upgrade isn't working and is causing more issues than it is worth. Leopard to Mountain Lion were the glory days of OS X stability, with Snow Leopard, Mountain Lion, and High Sierra standing out as focusing on bug fixes rather than introducing new features (and new b…
Maybe I’m getting old but the UX changes in newer versions of macOS turn me off. I’m still running Catalina but that has to change as it’s EOL this year. I use third party software to bring back some old behaviors but it’s an uphill battle, especially with things like the notification center.
> What other actively exploited bugs are Big Sur and Monterey now vulnerable to? Actually, Apple sometimes patches actively exploited vulnerabilities in "unsupported" older versions of both macOS and iOS. The vulnerabilities that don't get quickly patched are the ones that aren't actively exploited. In any case, security researchers talk about known vulnerabilities that have or haven't been patched, but as the author…
This is what I settled on years ago. The only exception was using Monterey on the new Apple Silicon macs. I upgraded to that earlier than normal.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
I was just rereading the ppc history for Apple as they're doing it again for ARM and it seems quite reasonable to be honest. They pulled something off I think would be difficult for many others and have shown they're not married to a single architecture. Still RIP my favorite machine the last ppc Mac tower
> They pulled something off I think would be difficult for many others and have shown they're not married to a single architecture. You mean like how MS Windows ran on the DEC Alpha as well as X86? Or how Linux runs on X86 and ARM CPU's? Running an OS on multiple CPU types goes back a very long time.
It’s not the same thing.
A macOS hard drive could boot either an Intel or PPC Mac and all of the apps ran on both types of machines.
Apps that were “fat binaries” ran natively on both processor architectures.
Same thing today with the apps and the operating system running natively on Intel and ARM machines.
Even as a full time mac user, both at work and privately I have a hard time remembering which release, say Sierra was and which one Mojave was and which one came first and if any release was in between.
This is simply how Apple does things. They provide software support for ~10 years and then they drop it. Is it wrong? I’m not entirely sure. You can call that greedy, but take a few things into consideration. Firstly, Apple provides highly specialized software that runs extremely well and efficiently on their own hardware. Continuously providing support for old hardware while simultaneously maintaining the same level…
Monterey was released in 2021 and dropped support for my 2014 MacBook Pro, so that's only 7 years.
It's fair to say that you can continue to run macOS N-1 and N-2, which would add years of life, but the author of the linked article is trying to argue that you're not safe unless you're running the latest major version.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
> I wish Apple had development and stable branches for macOS, such that stable was plain and had very limited features, stayed compatible with decade-old hw The reason they don't have that is the same we don't have this for phones. No profit driven venture on the planet would go through that trouble just to hurt their own sales. Which is why free (as in speech) alternatives are so important.
It wouldn't hurt their sales. Users running old hardware aren't doing it to save money but instead because they can't afford new hardware, which isn't the same thing. Apple isn't getting those sales anyway. Mac sales are driven by new users and users that can afford to upgrade hardware every two years. These consumers aren't going anywhere, and if Apple remained committed to a minimal amount of support for older hard…
Many of those users that "can't afford new hardware" are still forced to update after some point due to the lack of updates ("cannot afford" and "absolutely cannot afford" being two different things, and most are in the former category, they can e.g. put it on their credit card, or save some more, or sacrifice something else they'd be spending on, even if they're tight).
Plus, there are many more who can afford it, but doesn't really care much for having a new machine, they just do it because the old ones don't run their software or get updates anymore.
Both of those categories would update less frequently if they had regular updates and support for their old machines.